Orange Genie: umbrella won't let me submit invoices.

[helpFul]

I DIY everything. It doesn't take much time. Life is easy. We run very stright forward businesses. 1 or 2 revenue sources at a time, not many expenses and not much to worry about in terms of employees.

Therefore, I don't get the "easy life" motivation either.

Would you be so kind as to translate your last post to us in English? What does "stright" mean? And DIY?

[TestMangler]

Would you be so kind as to translate your last post to us in English? What does "stright" mean? And DIY?

Have you tried reading your own posts ??

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Not at all, quite the opposite, in fact. AWR has the side effect of clarifying that a Ltd Co contractor is almost certainly in business and hence (in theory, at least) out of the scope of IR35. You will recall that recent IR35 cases such as ECR have hinged on clear evidence that the worker was acting as a business and therefore not as an employee. I have a sneaky feeling that IR35 will be pointed much more at F2Ms and forced incorporations (look up how many hotel chambermaids own their own companies...) than long-term career contractors. More cases, perhaps, but rather more intelligently applied.

I can see how the AWR has reinforced HMR&C's position on IR35 by reiterating the criteria that they feel should be used to establish employment status but I certainly don't agree that it has clarified that Ltd Co contractors will be outside IR35 or outside scope of AWR - what in the guidance makes you think that??? This is the PCG's position as well and they have ignored the same question - twice

[malvolio]

I can see how the AWR has reinforced HMR&C's position on IR35 by reiterating the criteria that they feel should be used to establish employment status but I certainly don't agree that it has clarified that Ltd Co contractors will be outside IR35 or outside scope of AWR - what in the guidance makes you think that??? This is the PCG's position as well and they have ignored the same question - twice

Perhaps they know things we mere mortals don't?

Seriously, no idea - but it is a logical conclusion.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Perhaps they know things we mere mortals don't?

Seriously, no idea - but it is a logical conclusion.

Now you won't answer the question either

[malvolio]

Now you won't answer the question either

OK, so a partial answer may be found in the Daily Telegraph's article on National Freelancer's Day:

The PCG has three key
areas in which it is lobbying
the government to help make
working life easier for
freelancers. First, it hopes
that a set of changes to the
much-feared IR35 tax rules
will be agreed before the next
Budget that will make it
easier for freelancers to tell
whether they fall under this
tax regime or not and
therefore whether they run
the risk of an investigation by
HMRC. Second, the PCG is
working with the Cabinet
Office to make it easier for
freelancers to secure
government contracts that
require security clearance.
Finally, it is monitoring how
the EU Agency Worker
Directive, in force from
October 1, affects the market

for temporary contractors.

HTH

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

OK, so a partial answer may be found in the Daily Telegraph's article on National Freelancer's Day:



HTH

Are you kidding me Mal Where do you get 'the majority of Ltd Co contractors will fall outside scope of AWR' from that????

[malvolio]

The logic is unassailable. It may be wrong, but so could Einstein, according to those blokes in Italy

1. There are a clear set of criteria that define your IR35 status.

2. Recent case law has reinforced the view that the contractor's overall business model should be taken into consideration, so defining further the concept of genuinely IBOYA.

3. Genuinely IBOYA contractors are in effect - and hopefully in practice, by the next budget - out of the scope of IR35. (As supported by the quoted statement: PCG wouldn't say that if they didn't have at least tacit support from HMT in making that statement).

4. The scoping of the AWR specifically excludes those genuinely in business.

Ergo, if you are genuinely IBOYA for IR35 you are out of scope of the AWR. And vice versa.

QED.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

The logic is unassailable. It may be wrong, but so could Einstein, according to those blokes in Italy

1. There are a clear set of criteria that define your IR35 status.

2. Recent case law has reinforced the view that the contractor's overall business model should be taken into consideration, so defining further the concept of genuinely IBOYA.

3. Genuinely IBOYA contractors are in effect - and hopefully in practice, by the next budget - out of the scope of IR35. (As supported by the quoted statement: PCG wouldn't say that if they didn't have at least tacit support from HMT in making that statement).

4. The scoping of the AWR specifically excludes those genuinely in business.

Ergo, if you are genuinely IBOYA for IR35 you are out of scope of the AWR. And vice versa.

QED.

OK but 'in business on your own account' doesn't just mean that you have incorporated. AWR guidance states:

Those who are likely to be outside the scope of the Regulations include: individuals who find work through a temporary work agency but are in business on their own account (where they have a business to business relationship with the hirer who is a client or customer. but then the position is clarified:
'Simply putting earnings through a limited company would not in itself put individuals beyond possible scope of the regulations...However, where the relationship between the individual, TWA and hirer remains, in essence, a tripartite relationship, and a hirer is not a client or customer of such individuals, they are likely to be in scope'

How many contractors do you know who are under contract where there is not a tripartite contract in place between themselves and the agency and the agency and the end client (i.e. 3 parties are involved in the contractual arrangements)?

[malvolio]

OK but 'in business on your own account' doesn't just mean that you have incorporated. AWR guidance states:

Those who are likely to be outside the scope of the Regulations include: individuals who find work through a temporary work agency but are in business on their own account (where they have a business to business relationship with the hirer who is a client or customer. but then the position is clarified:
'Simply putting earnings through a limited company would not in itself put individuals beyond possible scope of the regulations...However, where the relationship between the individual, TWA and hirer remains, in essence, a tripartite relationship, and a hirer is not a client or customer of such individuals, they are likely to be in scope'

How many contractors do you know who are under contract where there is not a tripartite contract in place between themselves and the agency and the agency and the end client (i.e. 3 parties are involved in the contractual arrangements)?

Alternatively, "In business" means supplying a known set of skils and/or knowledge to a succession of clients with or without intermediary partners, advertising that your services are for hire, using a recognised trading vehicle for charging for your services, maintaining a corporate identity separate from yourself and exposing yourself to a degree of financial risk either in terms of cost of sales or potential non-payment.

The ECR judgement refers...